Faith of the Church

Malankara's Mythical Minefields

Myth 7: The Patriarch enjoys only spiritual overlordship and has no temporal authority over the Indian wing of the Syriac Church.

Fact: by Georgy S. Thomas,
Bangalore:

A study of the structure of the Indian wing of the Syriac Orthodox Church
will reveal that it is divided into the following for administrative convenience:

a.) Dioceses in Kerala and outside under the supervision of the Maphryan
(presently HB Baselios Thomas I).

b.) The Knanaya archdiocese, which is directly administered for the Patriarch by a Knanaya bishop.

c.) The Evangelical Association of the East, which is directly administered for the Patriarch by a bishop.

d.) The Honavar mission, which is directly administered for the Patriarch by a bishop.

e.) The Simhasana Churches, which are also directly administered for the Patriarch by a bishop.

f.) In addition, the Maphryan also has no jurisdiction over the Indian diaspora
in the Middle-East and North America, both of which are directly administered by the Patriarch through a bishop.

(Source: 'The Concept of Jurisdiction and Authority in the Syrian Orthodox
Church of Antioch' by His Grace Mor Gregorios Johanna Ibrahim, archbishop of Aleppo.)

Readers may please note that entries under b-d in the above series are directly
under the Patriarch's administration even though the laity membership is
composed exclusively of Indians. The bishops who administer these divisions
report directly to the Patriarch in Damascus, and not to the Maphryan in India,
even though all of them continue to be members of the Indian synod.
Theoretically, all these bishops have direct access to the Patriarch, and on
occasion, if they desire so, they can undermine the authority of the Maphryan by
producing Bulls from the Patriarch. Whether this is how it pans out in actual
practice is beyond the comprehension of this author, but anecdotal evidence
suggests that during the tenure of the previous Maphryan (HB Baselios Paulose II
of blessed memory) his authority was considerably undermined by the inherent
flaws in this structure. The Patriarch had even bestowed the title 'Great
Metropolitan of the East' on the late HG Abraham Mar Clemis of the Knanaya Sabha,
thereby diminishing the stature of the Maphryan further.

Of particular importance is the entry under (d). Contributions made from the
sweat and toil of our Jacobite brothers in the Gulf and North America - which
are not inconsiderable - directly find their way to Damascus. Most readers know
that Syria is a totalitarian dictatorship and its political leadership was
passed on five years ago from father to son as though in a monarchy. Sham
elections are organized once in a while, and the president is declared elected
with a landslide. In the last presidential elections held on July 10, 2000, for
instance, Bashar Assad - who became eligible to contest through a constitutional
amendment which lowered the minimum age from 40 to 34 (i.e. his age) - was
declared elected securing 97% of the total votes polled (source Britannica Encyclopaedia). Officially, the ruling political dispensation professes the
secular Baath ideology, but the country is something of a regional bully
(Lebanon is more or less a colony) and is alleged to be not above dabbling in a
bit of terrorism on the side. Many believe that a UN Security Council resolution
threatening sanctions against Syria is imminent. So if you are a resident of the
US, and are a frequent traveler to Syria, you can certainly expect to be under
the gaze of the Homeland Security Department.

It's to this place that the funds derived from the sweat and toil of our
Jacobite brothers are sent. We do not know whether the Syrian government gets
access to a portion of it, and if so, as to what purpose it's being put to use.

Classic Divide And Rule Policy

In many ways, the administrative structure adopted by the Syriac Orthodox Church
for its Indian wing mirrors the classic divide and rule imperial policy
perfected by the colonial British. At its height, what was known as British
India included present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar - in short, a
huge entity. A search through the census conducted by the British in 1901, now
available in electronic form here, revealed the following astonishing details:

i. The land area of the Indian Empire in 1901 was estimated at 1,766,597 square
miles. Out of this, 38.5% or 679,393 square miles were administered by some 560
princely states, whose discredited feudal rulers were the most loyal subjects of
the British empire. The remaining area was ruled directly by the British.

ii. Contrast the above with the current land area of the Indian Republic -
1,222,559 square miles. Short by 544038 square miles from the 1901 position.
Still, India is now the seventh largest country in the world.

iii. The population of India in 1901 was 294,361,056.

iv. The census estimated that the number of Europeans at that point in India,
including British soldiers and civil servants, was a mere 169,677. They had
another 89,251 loyalist Eurasians (now known as Anglo Indians) to help them.

Imagine that! A mere 169,677 Britishers controlled this huge landmass of
continental proportions and a population 1,700 times as much. How did they do
it? By a policy of divide and rule. They allowed the rulers of princely states
as well as other feudal leaders in territories directly administered by the
British to rule their turf as they wished so long as they paid their dues to the
British in time. They kept them happy bestowing meaningless titles, took them on
conducted tours to Britain, maintained them in good humour by presenting photo
opportunities with the British monarch, and generally looked the other way when
they let loose indignities against their own subjects. In return, these
princes/feudal leaders were transformed into the most devoted subjects of the
British empire, ready to crush even a whiff of dissent against the colonial
masters. Additionally, the British studied the ancient fault lines in the social
fabric of the country, created provocative situations and set community against
community, ethnic group against ethnic group, and caste against caste. In this
way, they managed the astonishing feat of ruling this monster of a country with
just a handful of people.

The Syriac Orthodox Church too follows a policy of divide and rule to control
its Indian wing. In the number of followers, the Indian wing at 12.5 lakh
(source CNEWA) is nearly three times the global strength of the Suryoyo wing (5
lakh: source CNEWA). Thanks to the diaspora in the Gulf and North America and
the native genius of the Indian people, our Jacobite brothers are truly blessed
to raise resources for their church. Yet they are unable to contribute fully
because under the convoluted imperial administrative structure they follow,
their tithes are flowing straight to Damascus. The Indian Jacobite Church is,
therefore, caught short on the resources front. For a long time (until 1990),
for instance, they were unable to organize resources to set up a
state-of-the-art seminary, and the church suffered for it. They see the Indian
Orthodox Church prosper, and without understanding their own structural
infirmities that are preventing them from realizing their full potential,
attribute the IOC's successes to the traditional bugbears of Manorama, Muthoottu, MRF, Aban Group etc.

I am not presenting a list of the titles granted by the Syriac Patriarch because
there are many good people among the recipients, and they may feel offended,
whereas my opposition is only to the idea and the motives behind it.

Conclusion:

A study of the administrative structure of the Jacobite Church in India leads us
to conclude that it's so arranged as to diminish the authority of the Maphryan
in the Indian Synod. This structure also allows the Syriac Patriarch to play a
role in the temporal affairs of the Indian church.

Response by Very Rev.
Kuriakose Moolayil, CorEpiscopa:

Patriarchal
Authority in India

Georgy's next "Myth" is that " the Patriarch enjoys only spiritual over lordship
and has no temporal authority over the Indian wing of the Syriac Church."

To illustrate more he defines the administrative set up in the Syrian Church in
India. He says that the ' fact ' is that it is divided into 6 entities of
different administrative orders including that of the Maphrianate. The Knanaya,
Simhasana Churches, EAE, Honovar Mission, etc. are specially categorized as
under the bishops directly under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch. He also
admits that these bishops are also part of the Maphrian Synod.

The fact is that a few of these institutions mentioned before are endorsed and
are approved to be under the Patriarch directly by all the courts in their
judgments. The latest judgment from the Supreme court of India also approved the
Patriarchal authority over these dioceses and institutions. We have to remember
the context in which this diverse situation was created only because of the
defection of a group from the church claiming autocephaly and independence. When
this group created troubles by defying patriarchal authority and are trying to
encroach into the parish properties the faithful had no other choice other than
to self governing registered bodies to safeguard the place of worship under
legal protection. But these safeguards are working in coherence with the oneness
of the church.

Here comes the question to Georgy on the making of his myth. I want to know from
where he framed this myth?

The fact is that the Malankara Church has five types of properties,

1. Properties under the control of the Malankara Metropolitan and co trustees.

2. Properties under the diocesan Metropolitan and the diocesan assemblies

3. Parish properties under the Parish assembly.

4. There were/are Patriarchal institutions with registered Adharams in the name
of the Patriarch.

5. There are organizations registered under societies act and Trust Act to be
under the Patriarch.

Till the coming of the British missionaries Malankara Church had only parish
properties. The Metropolitans (both Syrians and Indians) were not at all
custodians of the wealth and possessions in the church . They had no palaces or
private cathedrals. They were traveling all around the parishes as the spiritual
leaders with paternal care. The people took them as their revered leaders and
final words on everything in their life. The famous Cochin Award gave Properties
to the Metropolitan and during the split and in the litigation that followed the
Church Properties were attached. This issue was brought before the court and the
Royal Courts of Cochin and Travancore gave their verdicts identifying the
authority over the general assets of the Church. There it was declared that the
Spiritual Supreme of the Church in Malankara is the Patriarch. The
administrative authority of the disputed General Properties vested with the
Metropolitan and he has to be consecrated by the Patriarch and should be
accepted by the people. There are points to be noted here.

1. Before the pre British period the Metropolitan was purely Spiritual head.
They had no control or they ever tried to control over properties.

2.The litigations and strife were for the general properties of the Church.

3.The Church properties were also to be handled with the co operation and with
the representation of the priests and the people. Malankara church never held a
notion that the Church properties belonged to the Metropolitan. This idea came
only after the schism created under Vattaseril Thirumeni.

4. The parish properties were neither attached to the personal control of
Metropolitans nor were pushed into litigations before the time of Vattakunnel
Mathews 1 Bava. The Parish property right vested in the parish body is the
reason why a few parishes joined en block to the Roman Catholics after the
Coonan Cross, a very few joined the Anglican during the missionary revolt, A few
with the Marthomite during the reformist movement and again a very few are still
sharing jointly by the Marthoma and the Malankara Church.

I gave the above briefing to make it crystal clear that the hierarchy of the
Church in India, whether it be Patriarch, Catholicose or Metropolitan, were
considered as the Spiritual Head. They were never masters of the properties but
they were fathers of the fold. The fold never disregarded the 'authority' of
their 'spiritual fathers'. Now Georgy tries very hard to reallocate the temporal
and spiritual authority to Indian and Syrian prelates respectively. But to the
SOC it is not at all an issue. We have Monasteries in the personal name of the
Patriarch. Manjinikkara, Piramadom, Malecruz etc. are examples. We find no
difficulty in managing these by ourselves under the 'spiritual authority' of His
Holiness. knanaya, EAE , Honavar, Simhasana entities are strengthening the
church as well as growing independently under its constitution and under the
'spiritual authority' of the Patriarch in co operation with the main body of the
Church. The so called problems, divisions , reduction of the powers, etc. are
the creations of the IOC Propagandists. They are the outburst of their fury
against the established legal spiritual authority of the Patriarch of Antioch in
India. This arrangement is working here for decades smoothly. I can't find
nothing other than the frustrations of dissatisfaction among the IOC in this
type of arguments.

In this context I want to make a survey in the IOC to look whether there are any
instances of deferred authority like this among them. In US there are parishes
and priests entirely under two Metropolitans in the same place. Even in my city
of Chicago there are IO parishes under two different episcopal authority. There
are no problems among them in their co operation and co existence. Coming to
India the greatest financial treasury of the IOC is Parumala. It is under the
administration of the Malankara Metropolitan. The Niranam Metropolitan resides
there at times but has a residence and diocesan office elsewhere. Parumala
Thirumeni made the diocesan centre of Niranam there. But the present
Metropolitan has no diocesan centre there and has no control over it even though
it is inside his jurisdiction. Niranam diocese and Thoma Mor Dionasius
Metropolitan claimed it but now it works somewhat smoothly under the Malankara
Metropolitan. In Kottayam Diocese a few parishes are outside the control of the
diocese. The town parishes are under the Malankara Metropolitan even though the
diocesan headquarters is a few feet away from one of these churches. There are
no problems in this arrangement. The Knanaya diocese has a long history of
peaceful co existence among other dioceses.The sister parishes enjoy the
Interpolated episcopal authority in the Kandanad East and West, Trisoor and
Kunnamkulam dioceses and they co exist (?) in IOC. The arrangement in Knanaya,
EAE, Honavar and the Simhasana Churches was there even during the united period
of the Church. Mathews 11 Bava had institutions directly under him in other
dioceses. As far as I understand he had even worship centres and chapels in
other dioceses, like the Sasthamkotta centre. All these can function without
hurdles. Then why you pry and dissect the SOC set up to find malice only?

Georgy also creates a distortion when he points to the honorary title given to
Mor Clemis Abraham. He says that the title, the chief/great Metropolitan of the
East was to undermine the position of the canonical Catholicate. Georgy writes
this in 2006 to say that it was an act to undermine the late Mor Poulose 11.
This is nothing other than a distortion of fact. After the demise of other
senior bishops Mor Clemis became the senior most active bishop in the Indian
Church of that time. He was given a patriarchal honor titled the above. Any post
Sunday School level student of the church knows that the honorifics are not
authorized with staticons but all posts with authority of administration is
always authorized with staticons and also by 'sunthroneso' by the church.
Neither of the above was not followed with the bestowing of this honor to Mor
Clemis. The meaning is very evident. He was part of the Malankara Synod and co
operated with the church as he was acting before. I don't know whether Georgy is
aware that I was very active in the church affairs of that time and I know for
certain that what Georgy affirms here is nothing other than mere fabrication.

Honorific titles granted by the Patriarch is said to be stigmatic to the version
of Georgy. He degrades it to the titles given to the royalists during the
British regime. But the IOC also bestow honorifics to many of its members and
even outsiders. Is there any hidden motives in this action? If it is for the
service to the church why can't you see the other too likewise?

Next cry and tears of Georgy is shed upon the funneling of the 'considerable'
amount of finance from the 'sweat and toil of the Jacobite brothers' to
'Damascus'. I am now serving in a parish belonging to the Malankara diocese
under the Patriarchal jurisdiction. I hope Georgy will agree that I know more of
the facts than him who is living in Bangalore about 'tithe channelized to the
Patriarchate' . This allegation and the lie repeated from the times of
Vattaseril Thirumeni is really a boomerang. The craving for money, authority
over parish properties, litigation to win over the treasury of pilgrim centres,
receiving of bribe and other illicit amassing of wealth is a proven trait of our
Malankara people. I am not mentioning any names here. I have recently read about
a handing over of a bank balance related to a diocese associated with
appointments etc. It is fairly 5 or 6 millions of Rupees. This is only an
example and the tip of the colossal iceberg of the underground transactions and
financial dealings in IOC. We can read even in Internet media the plight of the
church leadership there. I know the lovers of the IOC are helpless here, but
innocent souls like Georgy are trying to revert the attention of the people from
these atrocities to baseless allegations like this. Have you heard or seen in
our times any Syrian prelate coming to Malankara parishes to collect money? But
very often the other way happens. We in India are many times helped and
supported by the Syrian bishops and parishes. Have you heard any Indian Student
staying in the Syrian Seminary spending from there pocket? Moreover His Holiness
is supported by the Syriac diaspora abundantly to continue all his projects. Any
sensible visitor to the Patriarchate can see the facts. Georgy or anyone in this
forum can confirm this fact from the defected bishops from our church to your
sides. If they report negatively please come out with their revealings.

The next part of this section is Georgy's essay on the totalitarian rule in
Syria and the demographic description of the comparison of the British and the
Indian statistics. I don't want to get into that. I want just to say that the
SOC had at all times suffered the vicissitudes of the uncomfortable political
situations. Now the Syrian administration is giving the Church a most favorable
freedom to work. As we politically Analise Syria is far better in religious
freedom and protection to its citizens than many other middle East countries.
Let us pray for the well being of the church and God's blessings for all the
churches facing political oppression.

What is the political structure of of the Gulf countries where we all are having
thriving parishes. Can we be against the administration there or brand them
totalitarian or having centralized Monarchy? We can only thank God and them for
what we enjoy there. Sitting in a city of free India and discussing on
totalitarian administration is quite easy. But we must be practical to the
context, modest in evaluation and prudent in accusation in comparison to
political situation.

Georgy concludes this issue saying that the SOC also follows the policy of
'divide and rule' like the British. But we the SOC are united to stand for the
cause that we commonly uphold. Our administrative differences or set up never
deviates us from the common cause. Georgy concludes that the Jacobites were
unable to pool enough finance to start a seminary until recently because we are
giving the tithe to the Patriarchate. Georgy has to remember that our people are
not very good in 'giving tithes' as you the IOCs may be. Our parishes are also
not wealthy in US and Gulf. With the limited finance we try to support ourselves
and try to support in our limited capabilities our projects back in India. Many
of our projects in India are supported by our Syrian brothers too. But we are
not sound enough to support them. As you know we in India don't have schools and
colleges to amass bribe for admissions. Our people abroad are not wealthy as
your people are! But there is a 'myth' or a wonder, God sustains us !. Georgy,
please don't use financial backwardness to under estimate the structure of the
church. You have to bear in mind that all the church properties and its
acquirements are in your possession. We had to build up everything from Seminary
to Outside Kerala Churches from our toil and sweat because you snatched
everything from us and even tried to close our parish churches by unwelcomed
molest and greedy entry. You are on the pedestal of financial berth of 2000
years of our church and we are having nothing other than the 2000 years old
endeared tradition and faith allegiance. Please pray for us !

Please note: Sorry, I am reported to be 'boring' and 'lengthy'. But I cannot
save. I am expressing my convictions on why I am in this Church. I was compelled
to write this in reply to a very intelligent criticism leveled against the
Church and its tradition by a very articulated researcher.

My apologies, if I offend inadvertently any of you in my immature selection of
words to express my perspectives. Nothing I have done intentionally to discredit
any person or position. Forgive me and pray for me if I personally offended
anyone. I will try to guard myself more in future. I thank sincerely for the
related comments.